13 yr olds need your help defending Christianity to atheist peers

[chariscath]

This is to mindovermatter2
Although all of this talking may well be enjoyable it will take you no nearer to the truth as you have, doubtless, discovered.

I, too, had a purposeless life. I, too, sought the truth. There is only one way to start the journey from that place. You must go to the Truth himself. You have tried everything else. If you are sincere, if you really are seeking the truth of the Universe then go to the source. Here it is: “Jesus, if you are real, show me.” If you mean it, he will. If you do not he may not but he would love to join the discourse!

Keep seeking…

 

[greylorn]

Not sure who this is directed to…

• To MindOverMatter on how to think about me?
• To me on how to think about MindOverMatter?

Since I posted to you, and you still could not figure out to whom it was directed, I’d have to conclude that it was a poorly directed post, to a cipher.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Not necessarily. In the same way as you apply logic to hold constant, even to realms we cannot possible get to, .

Nothing is not a realm. A realm is a reality.

if modern science understood the big bang phenomenon and was able to definitively declare that it really did just ‘come from nothing’ and it’s rules and theories held given the evidence we do have access to… it could make that claim. Do you disagree?.

Yes i disagree, since there is no basis in physics that allows us to appeal to that which is not real. Science is not the study of non-reality; it is the study of physical causes.

This is the beauty of science – though you are correct that it cannot make claims about something that is not real… it can create theories that predict what did happen and then examine the evidence…

Nothing is nothing, and in terms of having a definite nature it will never be anything more than nothing. It cannot be a reality or a nature of something. Anything that is real in particular is as such because it participates in, and is generated by, reality in general. Science has never discovered an objective nature that is nothing and it never will, and neither will it ever infer it because the word “nothing” doesn’t meaningfully or logically apply to a nature that is an objectively real being. If science comes to a point where space time and matter become meaningless, then science becomes silent and impotent on the question of physical existence and the act of reality in general in terms of ultimate origins. Science cannot answer the question “why something rather than nothing”; and any attempt to suggest that it might, is nothing more than a naturalism of the gaps. In the event of science proving that all of physical reality began to exist, it is at this point that science fails and metaphysics takes over; and logically speaking, in such an event, if one values rationality, one can only say that there are realities that are not space time and matter. What causes physical reality? Certainly nothing that is physical.

If one continues to insist on reality popping out of nothing, one is not saying anything meaningful or logical; one is merely attempting to avoid the consequences of taking reality to its ultimate extent. One certainly isn’t doing science. Instead they are promoting some irrational philosophy which they claim to be supported by science.

— Also ponder his quantitative description of how insignificant we actually are and contemplate that vs. the message that the entire universe was created for us. Indeed, even though Genesis is not literal, it’s interesting that we have progressed in our knowledge such that what almost all religions assert, namely that a supreme deity created us for his particular joy and love and even structured the world and universe for our pleasure, is patently false. Obviously not the deity part is falsified, but the idea that early forms of theological cosmology had about geocentricism and us being the pinnacle is quite odd when compared to our vast insignificance.
.

First of all, geocentricism is not an article of faith if by geocentricism you mean the old scientific pagan idea that the world literally revolves around the planet earth. Secondly; you assume that human significance and value is decided by size.

 

[jinminn]

Since I posted to you, and you still could not figure out to whom it was directed, I’d have to conclude that it was a poorly directed post, to a cipher.

Well, gee, here’s how your last post to me ended:

greylorn:

I picked on you because you are the best example of a mouth on, feet propped up poster (figuratively speaking, of course) on this thread. KS showed some as yet unrealized potential. Don’t take it personally unless doing so suits you better.

Though not particularly attacking my logic skills (as implied by referencing a false mathematical statement in the post in question), can you fathom why I might have thought you possibly were saying something negative directed at me vs. at someone else apparently with me?

No idea is what your deal is. You’re quite easily frothed up it seems.

 

[Garyjohn2]

I think its sad that there are 13 year old atheists.

 

[jinminn]

Nothing is not a realm. A realm is a reality.

I meant applying rules to a set of existence in which we have no reference for knowing if those rules apply. If there are possible worlds were our discovered and a priori rules of logic were different, then we could perhaps be discussing the same initial point (before time/space) but discussing it from worlds in which different post-creation rules applied. In none of the created worlds could we assume that our discerned and observed tools of philosophy applied to whatever existed before those rules did.

Unless the rules/logic/concepts are literally ‘eternal’ as well…

Nothing is nothing, and in terms of having a definite nature it will never be anything more than nothing. It cannot be a reality or a nature of something… Science cannot answer the question “why something rather than nothing”; and any attempt to suggest that it might, is nothing more than a naturalism of the gaps. In the event of science proving that all of physical reality began to exist, it is at this point that science fails and metaphysics takes over; and logically speaking, in such an event, if one values rationality, one can only say that there are realities that are not space time and matter. What causes physical reality? Certainly nothing that is physical.

I’ll ponder this more – very valid points. I see that I am using rules or coherent principles of physics as a basis for why science could talk about a time when supposedly those rules and principles (which describe interactions between matter and energy) were not in existence.

I think we are saying the same thing to each other re. each other’s tools. I would say the same for logic and philosophical tools used to get from when there is something (the only reason we have those tools) to describe when there was nothing. In each case, the tools cannot be verified to apply consistently.

If one continues to insist on reality popping out of nothing, one is not saying anything meaningful or logical; one is merely attempting to avoid the consequences of taking reality to its ultimate extent. One certainly isn’t doing science. Instead they are promoting some irrational philosophy which they claim to be supported by science.

I’m not insisting I just read and ponder about things. I’m undecided about what to make of it all. You would be correct in saying that I cannot solve the infinite regress, but I do not find satisfaction in solving it with a being we can never verify and who is as atypical to our experience as something coming from nothing. I’m open to a deity, but it would have no qualities other than being a ‘placeholder’ for whatever happened – there’s no deduction to all-loving and all-knowing or necessarily even all-power. This would be (sorry to be cliche) the philosophers’ god or whatever Einstein meant by the concept.

Thanks for continuing the discussion.

First of all, geocentricism is not an article of faith if by geocentricism you mean the old scientific pagan idea that the world literally revolves around the planet earth. Secondly; you assume that human significance and value is decided by size.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

If there are possible worlds were our discovered and a priori rules of logic were different, then we could perhaps be discussing the same initial point (before time/space) but discussing it from worlds in which different post-creation rules applied. In none of the created worlds could we assume that our discerned and observed tools of philosophy applied to whatever existed before those rules did.

Unless the rules/logic/concepts are literally ‘eternal’ as well…

The law of existence is eternal. Maybe there are worlds where the laws of physics are different, but there is no possible world in which there is such a thing as a “square triangle”. A scientific law is not necessarily a logical law, but rather it is an observance of physical behaviors that are consistent enough to deserve being called a “law”. Perhaps there is a world in which bricks don’t smash windows and blue elephants can at any moment burst out of acorns. Perhaps there is a world where things move without a mechanistic cause. But that is not the same as saying that there is an objective nature that is nothing or that i can exist and not exist at the same time. The laws of “being” and the laws of physics are two different things. When we talk about the act of existence we are talking about the laws of metaphysics, not physics. Physics deals with the essence or nature of that which happens to be actual. For instance science analysis the size shape width and weight of a thing and also the particular kind of power that a thing has. Metaphysics deals with reality in general as an “act” as opposed to that which is nothing at all. The laws of being is that which is necessarily true; and the laws of physics is that which is a potential consequence of the laws of being. The laws of physics can be different, but they can never contradict reality.

There is one thing that is certainly true of all “worlds”, and this is the fact that they “exist”. They are real or have the potentiality to be real. You cannot have a world that is nothing, because a “world” by definition is something; it is a real circumstance to which objectively true statements can be applied. A world cannot be and not be at the same time, and this is because “reality” as an “act” is fundamentally logical. You cannot have something which is objectively nothing, for nothing has no objectivity in it in so far as it has no reality; and there can be no such thing as an objective truth that is nothing, since there is no objective truth in nothing. Therefore out of nothing comes nothing. Thus there must be a being which has an essence that is fundamentally the same as its existence, and is thus the eternal root of all potential realities; otherwise no potential reality can exist. A potential reality is not existence by its own nature because if it was it would not fail to exist; it would timelessly transcend all potential reality. Potential realities gain reality only by participating in that which is reality. By themselves, they have no reality or nature. They are generated and sustained in reality by that which is absolute existence.

In order words a potential being cannot actualize itself for the simple fact that it is not real.

I’ll ponder this more – very valid points.

I am glad that you are taking it seriously.

I’m not insisting I just read and ponder about things. I’m undecided about what to make of it all. You would be correct in saying that I cannot solve the infinite regress, but I do not find satisfaction in solving it with a being we can never verify.

We can verify the “existence” of God metaphysically. Metaphysical knowledge is certain knowledge. It cannot not be true.

 

[crazydyl]

What is the most simple, easy-to-understand way to address these questions that are being discussed by a group of 13 year olds? Some of the kids are atheists, others are protestant and Catholic Christians. The Christian kids are having a hard time defending their position.

1. Why does God allow innocent children to be abused?
2. Why does He allow them to suffer?
3. Why does He allow the devil to possess innocent people, especially children?
4. We know that He gives us free will, and that bad things are caused by sin, but why does He allow other people’s sins and free will hurt an innocent child? Why doesn’t He protect them - they didn’t choose to sin - it was others who sinned. They should be the ones suffering for their own sins.

Help!!!

So that the good people will realise that there is only one place for good people and that is with Him. The world is bad so He lets these evil happen and gives evil freedom so that through logic we see that we can only go on through and with Him. A life without God is full of selfishness.

 

[crazydyl]

The law of existence is eternal. Maybe there are worlds where the laws of physics are different, but there is no possible world in which there is such a thing as a “square triangle”. A scientific law is not necessarily a logical law, but rather it is an observance of physical behaviors that are consistent enough to deserve being called a “law”. Perhaps there is a world in which bricks don’t smash windows and blue elephants can at any moment burst out of acorns. Perhaps there is a world where things move without a mechanistic cause. But that is not the same as saying that there is an objective nature that is nothing or that i can exist and not exist at the same time. The laws of “being” and the laws of physics are two different things. When we talk about the act of existence we are talking about the laws of metaphysics, not physics. Physics deals with the essence or nature of that which happens to be actual. For instance science analysis the size shape width and weight of a thing and also the particular kind of power that a thing has. Metaphysics deals with reality in general as an “act” as opposed to that which is nothing at all. The laws of being is that which is necessarily true; and the laws of physics is that which is a potential consequence of the laws of being. The laws of physics can be different, but they can never contradict reality.

There is one thing that is certainly true of all “worlds”, and this is the fact that they “exist”. They are real or have the potentiality to be real. You cannot have a world that is nothing, because a “world” by definition is something; it is a real circumstance to which objectively true statements can be applied. A world cannot be and not be at the same time, and this is because “reality” as an “act” is fundamentally logical. You cannot have something which is objectively nothing, for nothing has no objectivity in it in so far as it has no reality; and there can be no such thing as an objective truth that is nothing, since there is no objective truth in nothing. Therefore out of nothing comes nothing. Thus there must be a being which has an essence that is fundamentally the same as its existence, and is thus the eternal root of all potential realities; otherwise no potential reality can exist. A potential reality is not existence by its own nature because if it was it would not fail to exist; it would timelessly transcend all potential reality. Potential realities gain reality only by participating in that which is reality. By themselves, they have no reality or nature. They are generated and sustained in reality by that which is absolute existence.

In order words a potential being cannot actualize itself for the simple fact that it is not real.

This thread is not for what you two are talking about, so start a new thread

I am glad that you are taking it seriously.

We can verify the “existence” of God metaphysically. Metaphysical knowledge is certain knowledge. It cannot not be true.

 

[jinminn]

The law of existence is eternal. Maybe there are worlds where the laws of physics are different, but there is no possible world in which there is such a thing as a “square triangle”. A scientific law is not necessarily a logical law, but rather it is an observance of physical behaviors that are consistent enough to deserve being called a “law”…

Yeah… I just don’t follow much of this honestly — not you, just extremely foreign thoughts. I still believe it is valid to hold that we are applying discerned rules of logic and principles derived from within our experience of existence and positing them into a type of existence with rules we don’t know about or have a frame of reference for evaluating.

We can verify the “existence” of God metaphysically. Metaphysical knowledge is certain knowledge. It cannot not be true.

This is quite the bold claim which interests me very much. How would you judge whether it has been ‘verified’ yet? My quest thus far has been extremely lacking in certitude from either side – beings that solve regresses simply by defining them as such or something from nothing. If this is certain, why are so many unsure about such a certainty?

 

[twinc]

exactly as I stated in my thread “Already Gone” our young ones and adults[parents]etc have not been prepared to"be prepared to give an answer"as suggested by our first Pope at1Peter.3:15.Jesus gave the answer to this one “My kingdom is not of this world” - this world is fallen,distorted,flawed etc from God’s original world which was “very good” -twinc

 

[jinminn]

exactly as I stated in my thread “Already Gone” our young ones and adults[parents]etc have not been prepared to"be prepared to give an answer"as suggested by our first Pope at1Peter.3:15.Jesus gave the answer to this one “My kingdom is not of this world” - this world is fallen,distorted,flawed etc from God’s original world which was “very good” -twinc

• there is no natural evidence to support the non-existence of harmful disasters or organisms at some point in time such that after that point in time, these entities entered due to some event
• there is also no evidence to suggest that man was in pristine condition and in union with god at some previous point in time such that he fell and became a sinful monster at a later point in time
• given these facts, how would you establish a case for a pre-existing state of perfection?

Simply saying, ‘Well, we hope for good, right? Therefore we must have been perfectly good before!’ does not work.

Compare the two alternatives:

• *Natural:*the world has always been naturally consistent: weather fluctuations, natural disasters, etc. Man is an evolved mammal with particular tendencies for survival and existence in small tribes/cultures and these tendencies lead him to both altruism to in-group members and negative actions toward out-group members or those perceived as a threat.
• Supernatural: the world was a perfect haven and man was both in absolute union with god and talked directly with him and then disobeying a command led all hell to break loose in the world: earthquakes, tornadoes and the like became actual possibilities and flesh eating bacteria emerged as well as animals turning on humans. Man went from a perfect state of union to not only disunion but sinful tendencies where there were previously no such tendencies.

Which is more plausible? How could we verify the second explanation?

Also note that though no one would hold to a literal Adam and Eve, the founder of nearly all Christian theology, Paul, makes heavy claims based on it (connection on literal Adam’s fall to one literal Christ’s redemption, etc.). He was mistaken in his understanding of this event… can he be trusted in other theological claims made?

 

[twinc]

• there is no natural evidence to support the non-existence of harmful disasters or organisms at some point in time such that after that point in time, these entities entered due to some event
• there is also no evidence to suggest that man was in pristine condition and in union with god at some previous point in time such that he fell and became a sinful monster at a later point in time
• given these facts, how would you establish a case for a pre-existing state of perfection?

Simply saying, ‘Well, we hope for good, right? Therefore we must have been perfectly good before!’ does not work.

Compare the two alternatives:

• *Natural:*the world has always been naturally consistent: weather fluctuations, natural disasters, etc. Man is an evolved mammal with particular tendencies for survival and existence in small tribes/cultures and these tendencies lead him to both altruism to in-group members and negative actions toward out-group members or those perceived as a threat.
• Supernatural: the world was a perfect haven and man was both in absolute union with god and talked directly with him and then disobeying a command led all hell to break loose in the world: earthquakes, tornadoes and the like became actual possibilities and flesh eating bacteria emerged as well as animals turning on humans. Man went from a perfect state of union to not only disunion but sinful tendencies where there were previously no such tendencies.

Which is more plausible? How could we verify the second explanation?

Also note that though no one would hold to a literal Adam and Eve, the founder of nearly all Christian theology, Paul, makes heavy claims based on it (connection on literal Adam’s fall to one literal Christ’s redemption, etc.). He was mistaken in his understanding of this event… can he be trusted in other theological claims made?

 

[twinc]

twinc:
Who recorded all these supposed facts way back when - twinc

 

[greylorn]

Well, gee, here’s how your last post to me ended:

Though not particularly attacking my logic skills (as implied by referencing a false mathematical statement in the post in question), can you fathom why I might have thought you possibly were saying something negative directed at me vs. at someone else apparently with me?

No idea is what your deal is. You’re quite easily frothed up it seems.

Perhaps so. No one’s logical skills can be determined by evaluating their application to an inherently illogical set of ideas. I was trying to trick you into saying something worth discussing. Frustrated, I give up.

 

[crazydyl]

Perhaps so. No one’s logical skills can be determined by evaluating their application to an inherently illogical set of ideas. I was trying to trick you into saying something worth discussing. Frustrated, I give up.

I’d say that this 13 year-old would need to collect all of the evidence for miracles, relics etc. and then hand it over to each peer for them to make their own mind up. 13 year-olds will just see one theory and go with that because it makes sense, but once you look at EVERYTHING that The Catholc Church has to offer you’d see that it’s irrational to not be a Catholic - I wish that I was shown aged 13 rather than working it out aged 23!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

A 13 year old defending Christianity to atheist peers?

My guess is that the 13 year old atheist has no knowledge of Christianity if he is already an atheist. If I was 13 years old, I would not defend Christianity because I would not yet be fully informed on how to defend it. What I would do is ask the 13 year old how he knows for a fact there is no God.

My guess is that he will have no intelligent answer to offer, or he will have an answer that comes from his mother or father, who also have no intelligent answer to offer.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

This is quite the bold claim which interests me very much.

Do you agree that the following statement “a person cannot both exist and not exist at the same time” is a certain fact about objective reality?

If you agree with this, i will start a new thread dedicated to proving Gods existence using the metaphysics of being. What do you say creature?

 

[twinc]

Do you agree that the following statement “a person cannot both exist and not exist at the same time” is a certain fact about objective reality?

If you agree with this, i will start a new thread dedicated to proving Gods existence using the metaphysics of being. What do you say creature?

it seems that a person,like pink elephants, can exist and yet not be or be real - twinc

 

[Desertsailor]

What is the most simple, easy-to-understand way to address these questions that are being discussed by a group of 13 year olds? Some of the kids are atheists, others are protestant and Catholic Christians. The Christian kids are having a hard time defending their position.

1. Why does God allow innocent children to be abused?
2. Why does He allow them to suffer?
3. Why does He allow the devil to possess innocent people, especially children?
4. We know that He gives us free will, and that bad things are caused by sin, but why does He allow other people’s sins and free will hurt an innocent child? Why doesn’t He protect them - they didn’t choose to sin - it was others who sinned. They should be the ones suffering for their own sins.

Help!!!

I know I’m late getting to this thread and haven’t read it so forgive any repetitions.

First of all these aren’t atheist questions. These are questions from someone who is angry with God.

Second a 13 year old has no business discussing religion with non-Catholics. They are already on their way to hell and if you expose them to the truth and they reject it then they will go that much deeper into hell.

Finally, if you talk to them they can destroy your faith. Stay away from them and don’t talk to them. They aren’t your friends they’re the devil’s slaves.